9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.14,91,500/together with interest. 2. On 28th September 1987, the petitioner exported out of India 500 kg of Erythromycin Base, a bulk drug. The consignee in Hongkong observed certain variations in the specifications of the exported bulk drug and therefore rejected the goods. On petitioner's request the foreign buyer returned the goods to Mumbai in original packing. On receipt of the goods, the petitioner filed a bill of entry on 15th march 1990 claiming duty free clearance u/s.20 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Assistant Collector refused to allow the duty free clearance and on 28th June 1990, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner for confiscation of the consignment. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Collector (appeals) who by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... November 1990. As all the respondents neglected to deliver the goods which have been cleared by the Assistant Collector of Customs, the petitioner has filed this petition for writ of mandamus directing the delivery of goods or payment of the price thereof with interest. 3. Opposing the petition Mr. D.P. Gupta, Assistant Collector of Customs has filed an affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent nos.1 on 2nd January 1991. On behalf of respondent no.3 - Air India, three affidavits have been filed, one by Mr. K.U. Menon, Officiating Manager of Cargo Complex, Mr. M.P. Gonsalves, Duty Officer, Import Warehouse and Mr. J.J. Rindani, Secretary and Dy. Director (Administration). 4. Paragraph nos.6 and 7 of the affidavit of Mr.Gonsalves are mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchaser to remove the same. Accordingly, the contents of the said "Junk Room" were handed over and delivered by the 3 rd Respondent on 24/11/90, 27/11/90 and 28/11/90, under 3 gate passes. Each gate pass inter alia states that the goods covered thereby were disposed off by the 2nd Respondent. Each gate pass was signed by a customs officer, a representative of the 4th Respondent, and the said Mr.Anthony Pereira on behalf of the 3rd Respondent. I say that the said goods, including the suit goods were taken out of the possession and custody of the 3 rd Respondent and loaded on to trucks as per the said gate passed under the orders and directions of the customs authorities and in the presence of the said Customs Officer who signed the said g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue has not been disputed in the affidavit filed by the respondents. Since the petitioner had been demanding the delivery since 1990 and in the alternative it had also requested to the respondents to pay the value of the goods which has been denied for over 18 years, in our opinion the petitioner is also entitled to an interest. However, we are not inclined to granted interest at 18% as claimed by the petitioner but are inclined to award interest at a market rate of 6%. 6. For the reasons mentioned above petition is allowed and the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay to the petitioner Rs. 14,91,500/together with interest thereon at 6% p.a from 14th February 1991 (the day on which the petitioners approached the Collector of Customs) til ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
